poll: future of stereo?

Anyway, I'd say the first to establish is: Is there a future for 2-channel stereo (3 with sub)? Given that at least of the hi-fi mags in the UK predict 5 channel stereo to be the dominant within five years, I'd say this was an important point.

Secondly, is the future of two channel hi-fi the current, conventional stereo, or is it likely to be one of the two channel surround sound systems?

Lastly, will vinyl remain a force (all be it a small one) in hi fidelity reproduction, for the foreseeable future?

These are the questions I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on.

Chris L

If we want to talk about the future, why limit ourselves to the constructs of the day? 2 vs 3 vs 5 speakers. Stereo vs multichannel. Surely this is all incidential to the pursuit of a "quality audio/visual experience".

We can poll whether we think 3 channels is a goer or 6 channel or whatever but my attitude is, hell, if it's a better experience then I'm in (practicality, funds and partner allowing). I listen to music because I enjoy it, personally I couldn't care how that experience is mechanically reproduced.

Jay

quote:

---

lets spend a few postings helping each to design a poll that seeks views on the future of stereo as we know it today, in particular, listening to 2 speakers (maybe 3 with sub) in a non-shared (i.e single room rather than multiroom) environment. also this whole issue of integration with PC's -- although this may be related to multiroom?

---

I am convinced that 'pure' audio has a future, though I am also convinced that its future will become less and less mass market. It will certainly always be available, though will be more and more a minority interest catered for by high quality specialist manufacturers. I also think that manufacturers who attempt to cover all bases may possibly loose some credibility in the purist audio world (I guess I am thinking of Linn, Arcam, and the likes here). There are also parallels with the world of photography, my guess is that digital will eventually occupy the whole of the mass market, and indeed some of the professional market such as photojournalism where speed and convenience are issues. It will however never replace film, though may well marginalise it.

The recent history of vinyl offers to my mind a view of where things are going. With the advent of CD it was heralded as the future, the mass market totally bought into the concept, though it did not go away. It has even managed a slight rebirth, and thankfully the general view now is that a serious audiophile without a turntable is quite simply not a serious audiophile!

I have to be honest, I have no interest in multiroom systems, nor multi-speaker home cinema. At any given price point I would prefer a simple, and correspondingly higher quality two channel stereo. I certainly enjoy watching films with good sound, I run my TV sound through my normal stereo, and the effect of proper musical pitch and timing on film scores is far more impressive than any boom, bloat, and crash I have so far heard from an AV system. Bottom line: Until I was at the level of two pairs of active DBLs driven by 500s I would take the two channel system.

I think your choices should include 2 channel audio going more underground and specialist, as that is what I strongly suspect will happen.

Tony.

quote:

---

So, you want a poll on what should go in a poll? I thought this was hi-fi, not politics

---

i understand the good humour. but no, this is not a poll on a poll, its just that the quality of a poll depends on the quality of the questions (source first??) and i just wanted to make sure the questions that people had were reflected. of course the danger with this approach is that people immediately start discussing their views, instead of possing the questions, but, what does it matter, its all fun...

many thanks for contributing...

enjoy

ken

quote:

---

I am convinced that 'pure' audio has a future, though I am also convinced that its future will become less and less mass market. It will certainly always be available, though will be more and more a minority interest catered for by high quality specialist manufacturers. I also think that manufacturers who attempt to cover all bases may possibly loose some credibility in the purist audio world (I guess I am thinking of Linn, Arcam, and the likes here).

---

i agree. this is partly what got me thinking about this. many thanks for your thoughts. if you can think if specific questions we can include, post away!!

enjoy

ken

I also think you've touched on a very interesting and important subject, and I'll be fascinated to see what other members think.

One last point, that I forgot in my first reply - throughout this discussion, it should be remembered that audiophiles do not control the direction/destiny of hi-fi. Otherwise, CD would have vanished soon after launch........

Chris L

i'd have a decent two channel naim system anyday, all these surround effects are really bad.

for me hifi is about two channel systems with a vinyl front end. i still struggle with some aspects of CD.

Mono, stereo, 5 channel, holographic with 3D projected images, plug yourself into some software - whatever.

cheers

Nigel

p.s. forget vinyl, it won't be there.

If you now ask them to include another 3 speakers and maybe a sub as well most wives will be out of door! I'm guessing that people will look for the '5 channel sound' sticker when they buy a DVD player fo £150 from Tesco and then just plug it into the TV along with the vidoe and use whatever speakers come with the TV.

That means that only high-end types will bother to invest the effort in 5 channel, at which point the trade off between better 2 channel for the 1000+ albums you already own or more channels for the 5 DVDs you own is much less convincing to any investment decision.

Multi room is more appealing - I've got my NAT01 permanently selected on the 82s record channel and send the signal to a Nait in the bedroom - great for lazy sunday mornings!

Phil

However for the mass market extra speakers are a major selling point and even the useless processing of stereo into '5 channel' is appealing to many. Oh well!

Matthew

2-channel audio was devised as a compromise as there was no way anyone was going to accept so many big boxes in their living rooms (the days of sensitive 12inch drivers in mammoth cabinets) and 'stereo' became 2-channel audio. Thus we were saddled with 'purists' raging against multi-channel. ACK!

Tony, two pairs of DBLs??? Sheesh...

Sorry - no questions for the poll since Tony already covered that for me! FWIW, I think background music will become less prevalent since 1) that is the most obvious of music-only applications, 2) the AV aspect of music reproduction is a more singular experience leading to less intrusion being wanted by people at parties. At least - I wish that were so. Most other music applications will have a video component to them, making the full experience an AV one. Expect to see ghetto blasters with small LCD screens on them and virtual surround modes etc etc.

Not a bright future is it? (Sorry guys, it must be the sunny weather.)

Regards,
Frank.

quote:

---

p.s. forget vinyl, it won't be there.

---

It would certainly be nice to think that they will eventually get something to sound better than vinyl! Problem is that things on the whole seem to be going backwards…

A little history:

• 1958 - the first stereo vinyl record is produced by Audio Fidelity in the USA. I can't remember what it was called, but I have a absolutely mint original example of 'Swinging Dixie at Pier 600 New Orleans' by Al Hirt released on the same label a little later that year. It ranks as one of the best recordings of music I have heard!

• 1960s Cassette tape: convenience and recording ability above sound quality, not a serious medium, even if you have a enormous Nakamichi tape deck.

• 1970s Quadraphonic, the forerunner of surround sound. People quickly realised that you did not want to listen from within the piano etc. They will realise this again soon. Other startling 70s inventions included DBX encoding vinyl (didn't work properly), and the Elcassete - sort of a better quality big cassette that didn't catch on because it was a big cassette.

• 1980s The CD - perfect sound forever. Yeah right. Released too soon, limited sampling bandwidth and a massive shelf filter at 20khz. If only they waited until they could have doubled the sampling rate / bit depth it would be a real contender. Sold mainly because they didn't crackle, stick or jump, which is fine except they do unless handled with the care of a vinyl album. 20 years on, and it is pretty safe to say that CD is here for a good while to come. It is quite amazing how far replay and mastering has come considering the obvious limitations of the original specification. It can now certainly give mediocre to average vinyl a very good run for its money. Really can't touch the best stuff though.

• 1990s: DCC, Mini-Disc, MP3. All technologically crippled compared to CD. Nuff said. SACD, DVDA have potential if used with integrity as opposed as just being a marketing excuse to resell the back catalogue of the record labels. They are very unlikely IMHO to truly supersede CD, as the average consumer already has what they want (and possibly deserve).

There you go, find me something better than my nice slab of 1958 vinyl, and I might take this all seriously. Bottom line: specialist vinyl definitely will be there, the question is just how much.

Tony.

1. High quality stereo will die (<5% of mkt value) and video integration, multiroom, multichannel systems will develop into the preferred home entertainment system of the future, with sound quality as good as what we are used to with the likes of Naim Audio.

2. High quality stereo will die and video integration, multiroom, multichannel systems will develop into the preferred home entertainment system of the future, with sound quality nowhere near as good as what we are used to, but the market that cares for this will be too small to base a business proposition around

3. High quality stereo will survive as a specialist area to satisfy the remnant niche market of stereo diehards. There will be manufacturing companies who will choose to specialise in this area without diluting their stereo presence – there will be enough business for these companies to survive.

4. High quality stereo will survive as a specialist area to satisfy the remnant niche market of stereo diehards. However manufacturing companies will NOT be able to choose to specialise in this area – they will need to diversify into the mass market to stay in business at all.

enjoy

ken

Question-will the average Man-in-Dixons buyer of audio equipment, even the 'averagely interested' consumer really want systems with multiple speakers of varying sizes and complex positioning in their living rooms?

Seems to me that unless technology gives us flat speakers (NXT etc) or at least tiny ones that actually work then multi-channel will just not be feasible or popular for the masses.

Absolute sound quality is not the only issue for the ordinary buyer who make profits for the mainstream companies-appearance and fashion are major factors.

regards

Bruce